Lawsuit: Dismissed Monacht v. RylandW [2025]

[Angryhamdog]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Monacht (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

V.

RylandW
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
RylandW has an unsafe property that is specifically designed for new players, which can cause, and has caused, harm to new players.

I. PARTIES
1. Monacht (Plaintiff)

2. RylandW (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On January 26th, 2025, Monacht entered the skyscraper plot of S-041. She was following a GPS in order to get free food, which is an offering provided by the tower [see P-001].
2. Monacht, while exploring the building, saw a hole and fell into it, taking slight damage in the process [see P-003]. This hole led to a dark, undeveloped maze of tunnels underneath the building. Monacht was further unable to get up due to a lack of elevators from ground floor to the ‘basement’ [see P-002].
3. In addition to the hole the Plaintiff fell into, there were at least two more holes on different floors of the building, as well as several floors that were completely undeveloped, which could have led to 5-20 meter falls had the Plaintiff, or other new players seeking to rent free apartments or food, been less cautious.
4. The holes in question, along with the unfinished floors, would likely have taken less than 10 minutes for a reasonable person to completely fill in to a safe standard, costing under $100 dollars in raw materials, The holes and unfinished areas are still not filled in over 20 days after the Plaintiff originally fell.
5. This property is regularly visited, and has apartments currently in rent, by several people. This property has no signs or safety measures to prevent players from falling into the holes.


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff was slightly injured on the fall into the hole, and was reasonably scared from being unable to escape due to a lack of elevators. Additionally, the Plaintiff was forced to be much more cautious than someone should be in a commercial building owned by an active player who actively rents out parts of the building.
2. The building was completely derelict and unfinished, not fit for tenants or the average new player. The Property Standards Act mandates that “The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law…These regulations will be listed under Department Policy.” Accordingly, the DCT has categories which can be found under “Eviction Information”, and the defendant has failed to resolve his ‘lack of progress’ regulation, which requires significant changes, an example of which was listed as being ‘completing at least 1 furnished floor’ a week, which the Plaintiff has failed to handle within, at minimum, 20 days since the accident. Additionally, the building falls under the ‘eyesore’ regulation, as the upper floors are not structurally sound (with a mere one or two connections to walls to ensure integrity), and the interior is unrealistic as a commercial building with public elevators taking you to unfinished, dangerous floors.
3. The advertising of ‘free apartments’, ‘free food’ and ‘free resources’ indicate that it’s a completely safe area for new players who seek financial support. That being said, this property and by extension, its owner has violated a duty of care to players who are new to the server, or even possibly minecraft itself, who may be unfamiliar with the risks of such dangerous drops, as there were zero signs, railings, or additional protections against such risks.
4. According to the Legal Damages Act, Punitive Damages are to punish a person for their outrageous conduct, and to deter them from similar conduct in the future. Ryland’s outrageous display of negligence over the course of several weeks shows that these damages are necessary to prevent any further harm. Further under the Legal Damages Act, Emotional Damages are any situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. This was clearly shown by P-008, which shows RylandW being online for more than 20 hours in the last 30 days, proving that he had the time to fix it, but did not. Finally, under the same Legal Damages Act, Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont are situations in which “an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities”, which can be easily shown by the incidental entrapment of my client inside of a dark, dilapidated dungeon.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Consequential Damages
   1. $10,000 for emotional damages caused by the fear of death, fear or harm, and fear of permanent entrapment caused by the unsafe property.
   2. $4,000 for loss of enjoyment of Redmont, as the Plaintiff needed to be extremely cautious while exploring a dual-commercial-residential building that should have the relative guarantee of safety.

1. Punitive Damages
   1. $8,000 for the outrageous act of owning a property, specifically marketed towards new players, with extremely dangerous conditions.

1. Legal Fees
   1. $6,600 for legal fees equaling 30% of this case’s value to cover the costs the Plaintiff incurred by hiring Dragon Law Firm as legal representation.

V. Evidence

Spoiler: P-001

Claim of “Free apartments”, “Free food”, and “Free resources”

Spoiler: P-002

Ground floor elevator on ‘Floor 1 of 11’, showing that there is not a way to get out of the basement, concurring with P-003.

Spoiler: P-003

Video showcasing the Plaintiff falling into the hole and being unable to escape.

Spoiler: P-004

Additional hole on the property.

Spoiler: P-005

Additional hole on the property.

Spoiler: P-006

Additional hole on the roof, falling to the below story.

Spoiler: P-007

2 completely unfinished floors and architecture, without any rails or signs of warning.

Spoiler: P-008

PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

 

[RylandW]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

Rule 5.12 states: "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

No legislation was cited in the evidence.

 

[RylandW]

*My apolgies: that should state Rule 5.5. This was my own fault and I apologize.

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

Rule 5.12 states: "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

No legislation was cited in the evidence.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Court Rules and Procedures Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim).

Rule 5.12 states: "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge."

No legislation was cited in the evidence.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of procedure.

Your Honors, RylandW has not been summoned, and such may not make motions to dismiss.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your Honor, I respectfully will be amending the complaint / case filing to add the following:

III. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
4. According to the Legal Damages Act, Punitive Damages are to punish a person for their outrageous conduct, and to deter them from similar conduct in the future. Ryland’s outrageous display of negligence over the course of several weeks shows that these damages are necessary to prevent any further harm. Further under the Legal Damages Act, Emotional Damages are any situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions. This was clearly shown by P-008, which shows RylandW being online for more than 20 hours in the last 30 days, proving that he had the time to fix it, but did not. Finally, under the same Legal Damages Act, Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont are situations in which “an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities”, which can be easily shown by the incidental entrapment of my client inside of a dark, dilapidated dungeon.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-008

This shows that RylandW almost certainly had the time to complete at least minor repairs to the building, having spent 20 hours online over the last 30 days.

Thank you so much, your honor.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

RylandW, you have not been summoned. Please do not file motions until summons have been issued. All messages except for the request for editing the complaint are struck. You may edit the claims for relief.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Plaintiff, I will be giving you 24 hours to cite legislation regulating holes in buildings.

 

[Angryhamdog]

Your honor, my apologies for not making this clearer beforehand.

The legislation that gives credibility to the claims for relief is in the Property Standards Act, Section 4. This states that “The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law…These regulations will be listed under Department Policy.” This gives the authority to the DCT to establish breaches of these policies as unlawful.

With that in mind, and as we have not moved on to discovery, I humbly request to edit the Complaint Filing, in order to properly link the above law with the relevant policies. It will be amended as such:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
2. The building was completely derelict and unfinished, not fit for tenants or the average new player. The Property Standards Act mandates that “The Department of Construction and Transportation shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law…These regulations will be listed under Department Policy.” Accordingly, the DCT has categories which can be found under “Eviction Information”, and the defendant has failed to resolve his ‘lack of progress’ regulation, which requires significant changes, an example of which was listed as being ‘completing at least 1 furnished floor’ a week, which the Plaintiff has failed to handle within, at minimum, 20 days since the accident. Additionally, the building falls under the ‘eyesore’ regulation, as the upper floors are not structurally sound (with a mere one or two connections to walls to ensure integrity), and the interior is unrealistic as a commercial building with public elevators taking you to unfinished, dangerous floors.

My deep apologies, and thank you, your honor.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

At this time, I will be dismissing this case with prejudice. It is clear that damages were intentionally caused by the plaintiff, as seen in P-003, by deliberately walking into a hole, already having stood on the elevator and knowing that there is no elevator inside of the hole.

There are no damages that could be reasonably caused to a reasonable person. The DCT may investigate this if they wish, but intentionally jumping off a floor into a random hole in the back is not the fault of the defendant.

The lawyer for the plaintiff is charged with filing a frivolous court case.